Evaluation of the Mean Bite Force and Masticatory Performance of Maxillary and Mandibular Complete Dentures vs Mandibular Implant-supported Over Denture.

AIM: To compare and evaluate the mean bite force and masticatory performance of conventional complete dentures (CD) in comparison with the lower implant-supported overdenture opposing an upper CD by using a strain gauge transducer and a test material respectively, in the same patient over a different period of time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 20 edentulous patients in the age range 45-65 years with a good general and oral health. In the first phase of the study, conventional CD were fabricated and delivered to each patient who participated in the study. A strain gauge transducer was used to analyze the maximum bite force and an agar test material was used to assess the masticatory performance using the sieve method. The existing lower denture was used to deliver a two-implant overdenture system and two implants were placed in the intermental-foraminal region of the mandible. One month after the delivery of implant-supported overdenture, the maximum bite force and masticatory performance were assessed as before. RESULTS: To test two independent variables, the data were analyzed statistically using an unpaired t-test. In comparison to the conventional upper and lower CD rehabilitations, the implant-supported lower denture and conventional upper CD rehabilitations resulted in statistically significant improvements in biting force and masticatory performance. CONCLUSION: Study findings demonstrate that the completely edentulous patients can be rehabilitated with the upper CD and lower two-implant supported overdenture system that offers improved biting force and masticatory performance than conventional upper and lower dentures. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Masticatory efficiency is one of the important indicators of functional state of stomatognathic system. Determination of individual masticatory performance has been used to ascertain the therapeutic effect of prosthetic device.

Evaluation of root coverage with pedicled buccal fat pad in class III and class IV gingival recession defects.

BACKGROUND: Gingival recession (GR) is a common clinical feature of periodontal disease and is an undesirable condition. More than 50% of the population has one or more sites with GR ≥ 1 mm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study 15 subjects were subjected to initial periodontal therapy such as ultrasonic scaling and root planning with hand instruments and curettes. Patient is motivated for home care. The buccal fat pad is harvested and sutured in the gingival recession area and followed up for 6 months and root coverage was calculated. RESULTS: At baseline mean recession of 5.60 ± 1.18 mm, probing depth of 0.73 ± 0.59 mm, clinical attachment loss of 6.40 ± 1.18 mm were recorded. At the end of 6 months, the mean recession was reduced from 5.60 ± 1.18 mm to 2.87 ± 0.74 mm, probing depth was increased from 0.73 ± 0.59 mm to 1.73 ± 0.70 mm and clinical attachment loss was decreased from 6.40 ± 1.18 mm to 4.53 ± 0.83 mm.The difference between baseline score and six months score for all three parameters are statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Buccal fat pad is a predictable procedure to cover Miller's class III and class IV gingival recession defects. There was a definitive improvement in clinical parameters (reduction in gingival recession, increased probing depth, gain in clinical attachment) after 6 months. There was 46.78% improvement in root coverage which was statistically significant.